Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch1_p00455.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 40 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys (DE 164). The motion should be denied in its entirety. INTRODUCTION Defendant argues Ms. Giuffre and two of her attorneys (Cassell and Edwards) have somehow placed “at issue” her confidential attorney-client communications and therefore have made a “sweeping waiver” of attorney-client privilege in this case. Defendant, however, fails to cite the controlling law on this issue: Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Enacted in 2008, Rule 502 was designed to block exactly the kind of argument Defendant is making. Rule 502 provides that litigants are entitled to the most protective law on attorney-client privilege, either state law where the disclosure was made or federal law. The alleged disclosures in this case were made in Florida, and under Florida law did not constitute any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Defendant does not reveal to the Court that the Florida judge who handled the case during which the alleged “waivers” occurred (the Dershowitz case) has already considered — and rejected in their entirety — the very arguments that Defendant is advancing here. In addition, none of the alleged disclosures were made by Ms. Giuffre, who as the holder of the privilege is the only individual with authority to waive it. Moreover, none of the alleged disclosures concerned the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. And finally, Ms. Giuffre will not be seeking to introduce or otherwise take advantage of any confidential attorney-client communications in this case. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety.